Talk:Schloss Burg
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Msh210 in topic Schloss Burg
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Oh c'mon, this is just the name of a castle. We don't even have Neuschwanstein so why should we have this? -- Liliana • 21:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep; we do include many place names, and castles are not as numerous as e.g. streets. In any case, I have not seen consensus or any signs of it that names of castles should be excluded. We should have Neuschwanstein, to be sure. Pertinent regulation: WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. For Czech, we should have Hluboká and Karlštejn. I can imagine "Schloss Burg" excluded for its inclusion of the word "Burg", but then you have to consider all the English geographical names like Hudson River, Cooper Creek, Lake Ontario, Atlantic Ocean, Adriatic Sea, Chesapeake Bay, Cape Horn, Mount Everest, Longs Peak, Death Valley, Copper Canyon, Red River Gorge, Mexico City, New York City, Cape Town, and New York State. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- There's really no keep or delete rational here in CFI. CFI passes it back to voters to decide how they want to vote. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- The comments above get at the salient point here: WT:CFI offers little intelligible guidance on the subject of including vs excluding placenames. WT:CFI says: "Many places, and some people, are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names. The Wiktionary articles are about the words. Articles about the specific places and people belong in Wikipedia."
Later, it adds: "This section regulates the inclusion and exclusion of names of specific entities, that is, names of individual people, names of geographic features, names of celestial objects, [...]. A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which."
This doesn't even entirely make sense: "many places [...] are known by single word names that qualify for inclusion as given names or family names"? Uh... OK, that's technically true, "France" is a placename and "France" qualifies for inclusion as a surname... but we also definitely include the placename "France".
As far as I can tell, everyone agrees we should include single-word names of continents (e.g. Asia) and countries (e.g. France). The long names of countries have also been kept, e.g. Talk:State of Israel. Most people (but not Michael Z) seem to agree that we should include names of provinces and regions, and of major cities. Everyone except Purplebackpack seems to agree that we should not include the names of streets, or of street addresses, unless they have other senses (like 10 Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue do). There's some unhappiness (from Liliana among others) about including the names of minor villages, but so far it still happens. I recall someone RFDing the Chinese(?) names of some specific hotels and rooms(!) recently; what happened to them?
Anyway, I would tentatively say to delete this and other names of buildings, unless they have other senses (like White House does). - -sche (discuss) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)- Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames with linguistic information 2 is IMHO the best evidence of consensus or its lack as far as place names. This vote did exclude streets but did not exclude names of castles. Again, castles are not all that numerous, unlike streets; they are probably less numerous than villages. The regulation created by the vote was later removed, as it was deemed too stringent, requiring the place names to have actual attesting quotations in the Wiktionary before they can even be created. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)